DOCSLIB.ORG

Separation of Campaign and State

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Separation of Campaign and State Separation of Campaign and State Bradley A. Smith* ABSTRACT In a pair of recent decisions, Davis v. FEC and Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, the Supreme Court has struck down on First Amendment grounds laws that would have arguably created more, not less speech. The federal statute at issue in Davis actually raised contribu- tion limits for certain candidates being outspent from the personal resources of wealthy opponents; the state law in Arizona Free Enterprise Club provided for state subsidies to candidates being outspent by their opponents and inde- pendent spenders. The Court’s opinions in these cases, taken on their own terms, are unsat- isfying. The Court correctly recognizes the deeply troubling nature of the gov- ernment policies at issue in Davis and Arizona Free Enterprise Club, which involved the government in favoring certain candidates over others, but it has not successfully articulated why those policies are offensive to the First Amendment, given that each law provides more resources for a candidate to speak. This Article argues that the Court’s opinions show only an inchoate rec- ognition of the core problem. Government involvement in regulating and es- pecially in subsidizing candidate speech inherently entangles government in campaigns in a manner incompatible with core American assumptions about democracy, in much the same way that direct subsidies to churches violate the First Amendment’s religion clauses even if made available to all religions. The Roberts Court, however, is trapped by its refusal to challenge prece- dents allowing government subsidies of campaigns and wrongly confusing the government’s authority to regulate the “time, place and manner” of elections under Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution as the authority to regulate politi- cal speech and campaigns. This Article argues from history, text, and struc- ture that Article I, Section 4 applies only to regulating such actual election mechanics as the system of election, maintenance of voter lists, and the method of casting and counting ballots, not to the regulation of political debate that precedes elections. The Article further argues that the text of the First Amendment and the structure of the Constitution require a “separation of campaign and state,” limiting direct government regulation or subsidizing of political speech and campaigning analogous to the judicially created doctrine of “separation of church and state.” The Article concludes with a review of some of the impli- cations of such a doctrine. * Visiting Judge John T. Copenhaver Chair of Law, West Virginia University, and Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law, Capital University. November 2013 Vol. 81 No. 6 2038 2013] SEPARATION OF CAMPAIGN AND STATE 2039 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................. 2039 I. ARIZONA FREE ENTERPRISE CLUB, DAVIS, AND THE CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF CAMPAIGNS .......................................... 2042 II. CAMPAIGNS VS. ELECTIONS ............................. 2056 III. SEPARATION OF CAMPAIGN AND STATE ................ 2073 A. The Problem of Scope and Line Drawing ........... 2075 B. Thumb on the Scale ................................. 2087 C. Separation of Campaign and State .................. 2098 IV. SOME ISSUES FOR A DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION ........ 2102 A. Should the Doctrine Apply to the States?............ 2102 B. The Problem of Line Drawing Remains ............ 2102 C. A Doctrine of Separation of Campaign and State Would Deprive the State of Weapons Needed for Its Own Self-Preservation .............................. 2105 CONCLUSION ................................................... 2107 INTRODUCTION The arrival of the Roberts Court has heralded a new agnosticism toward campaign finance regulation. The credulity that marked the Court’s opinions at the turn of the century has been replaced by a more skeptical approach.1 In cases such as Citizens United v. FEC,2 Randall v. Sorrell,3 and FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.,4 the ma- jority’s skepticism has been contested by heated dissents,5 but the de- cisions, whatever their merits, have been based comfortably on traditional First Amendment doctrine. One can argue that the deci- sions may have misapplied that doctrine, but in each of these cases the Court majority sees the government adopting a policy that severely limits political speech, perhaps intentionally, and therefore strikes 1 Compare Nixon v. Shrink Mo. Gov’t PAC, 528 U.S. 377, 391 (2000) (“The state statute is not void, however, for want of evidence.”), and McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 188–89, 209, 211, 223, 231, 238, 239–40 (2003) (upholding campaign restrictions against constitutional challenges), with FEC v. Wis. Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449, 457 (2007) (“[T]he First Amendment requires us to err on the side of protecting political speech rather than suppressing it.”), and Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 365 (2010) (overruling McConnell in part). 2 Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). 3 Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (2006). 4 FEC v. Wis. Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007). 5 Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 393–485 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Wis. Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. at 504–36 (Souter, J., dissenting); Randall, 548 U.S. at 273–81 (Stevens, J., dissenting); id. at 281–90 (Souter, J., dissenting). 2040 THE GEORGE WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW [Vol. 81:2038 down the law after finding that such regulation is not justified by a compelling government interest.6 Two recent cases, however, do not fit so neatly within this frame- work. In Davis v. FEC,7 the Court struck down a federal statute that, under certain circumstances, actually increased the size of political contributions that an individual could make to a candidate.8 And in Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett (“Ari- zona Free Enterprise Club”),9 the Court struck down an Arizona law that, under particular circumstances, provided political candidates with state subsidies in order to increase the reach of their political speech.10 In these cases, the Court’s opinions, taken on their own terms, are less satisfying than those in Citizens United, Randall, and Wisconsin Right to Life. This Article suggests that the Court correctly recognizes the deeply troubling nature of the government policies at issue in Davis and Arizona Free Enterprise Club, but has not success- fully articulated why those policies are offensive to the First Amend- ment. This Article sets forth, in rudimentary terms, an alternative theory, which I will call “separation of campaign and state.” “Separation of campaign and state,” of course, conjures up our well-known and long-standing commitment to separation of church and state. It is intended to. Like the separation of church and state, it is not explicit in the Constitution but flows from the document’s struc- ture and purpose.11 Like separation of church and state, it hardly re- solves all difficult First Amendment questions, but it answers many and provides a sound formula for addressing harder cases.12 For over 100 years, since the passage of the Tillman Act13 in 1907, Congress has enacted legislation to regulate campaign finance.14 In 6 See Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 348–65, 371–72; Wis. Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. at 476–81; Randall, 548 U.S. at 247–48, 253–63. 7 Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724 (2008). 8 Id. at 743–45. 9 Ariz. Free Enter. Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 131 S. Ct. 2806 (2011). 10 Id. at 2813, 2828–29. 11 See Sch. Dist. of Abington Twp., Pa. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 217–21 (1963). 12 See, e.g., Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 683–86 (2005). 13 Tillman Act, Pub. L. No. 59-36, 34 Stat. 864 (1907). 14 See id.; Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold), Pub. L. No. 107- 155, 116 Stat. 81; Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-443, 88 Stat. 1263; Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, Pub. L. No. 92-225, 86 Stat. 3 (1972); Taft- Hartley Act, Pub. L. No. 80-101, 61 Stat. 136 (1947); Smith-Connally Act, Pub. L. No. 78-89, 57 Stat. 163 (1943); Hatch Act Amendments, Pub. L. No. 76-753, 54 Stat. 767 (1940); Hatch Act, Pub. L. No. 76-252, 53 Stat. 1147 (1939); Federal Corrupt Practices Act, Pub. L. No. 68-505, §§ 301–319, 43 Stat. 1053, 1070–74 (1925) (repealed 1972); Publicity Act Amendments, Pub. L. No. 62-32, 37 Stat. 25 (1911); Publicity Act, Pub. L. No. 61-274, 36 Stat. 822 (1910). The Tillman 2013] SEPARATION OF CAMPAIGN AND STATE 2041 Burroughs v. United States,15 the Court, without analysis, found consti- tutional authority for this undertaking in Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution,16 which provides that “[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be pre- scribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators,”17 and Article II, Section 1,18 which pro- vides that “[t]he Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”19 On the basis of this opinion, broad authority to regulate political campaigns was later assumed in the seminal case of Buckley v. Valeo,20 and in all campaign finance cases since.21 This Article argues that Burroughs and later cases wrongly con- flate the concept of “elections” with that of “campaigns,” and that these are distinct concepts that can and should be separated for consti- tutional purposes. Further, it argues that the Constitution does not provide an explicit grant of power for the federal government to regu- late political campaigns and that, in fact, the Constitution should be deemed to create “a wall of separation” between political campaigns and state power, similar to the one that has long been accepted be- tween church and state.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FISCAL YEAR 2021 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATION —And— PERFORMANCE BUDGET GOALS
    FISCAL YEAR 2021 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATION —and— PERFORMANCE BUDGET GOALS U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL 1730 M Street, N.W., Suite 218 Washington, D.C. 20036-4505 www.osc.gov TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 Summary of Request 5 Appropriations Language 8 About the Office of Special Counsel 8 OSC’s Docket 8 Strategic Goals 11 OSC’s Efficiencies and Successes 11 OSC’s Internal Organization 13 Components of Budget Request 15 Budget by Program 16 PART 2 – FY 2021 BUDGET REQUEST – ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 17 FY 2021 Budget Request by Budget Object Class 17 Analysis of Resources Table 19 PART 3 – BUDGET PROGRAMS AND PERFORMANCE PLAN 20 FY 2019 Case Activity and Results – All Programs 20 Investigation and Prosecution of Prohibited Personnel Practices 21 USERRA 27 Alternative Dispute Resolution 30 Whistleblower Disclosure Program 32 Hatch Act 36 OSC’s Diversity, Outreach and Training Program 40 PART 4 – ENHANCEMENT OF OPERATIONS 42 Strategic Management of Human Capital 42 Improved Financial Performance 42 Competitive Sourcing 43 Maximizing Efficiencies through use of Shared Service Providers 43 IT Modernization Initiatives 44 IT Goals for FY 2020 – FY 2021 45 Improving Employee Satisfaction and Wellness 45 Telework Initiative 45 Continuity of Operations 46 Risk Management and Program Evaluation 46 APPENDICES 47 Appendix A: Statutory Background 47 Appendix B: Strategic Plan – FY 2017 to FY 2022 49 Appendix C: Goal Tables for New Strategic Plan 63 Appendix D: OSC Organizational Chart 77 U.S. Office of Special Counsel FY 2021 Congressional Budget Justification Page 2 PART 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) acts as the premier channel for whistleblowers and federal workers seeking redress for violations of their civil service protections, as well as safeguards the nonpartisan ethos at the core of the federal workforce.
    [Show full text]
  • ANNUAL REPORT to CONGRESS —For— FISCAL YEAR 2018
    ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS —for— FISCAL YEAR 2018 U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL 1730 M Street, N.W., Suite 218 Washington, D.C. 20036-4505 www.osc.gov U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL 1730 M Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20036-4505 The Special Counsel The Honorable Michael R. Pence President of the Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Nancy P. Pelosi Speaker of the House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Mr. President and Madame Speaker: I respectfully submit the Report to Congress for fiscal year 2018 from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. A copy of this report will also be posted on our website. Sincerely, Henry J. Kerner TABLE OF CONTENTS The Special Counsel 5 A Message from the Special Counsel 6 Part 1: Introduction to OSC 8 Statutory Background 8 Mission 9 Part 2: Overview of Operations 10 Internal Organization 10 FY 2018 Budget and Staffing 12 FY 2018 Case Activity and Results 12 Part 3: Prohibited Personnel Practice Complaints 14 Summary of Workload, Activity, and Results 14 Receipts and Investigations 14 Performance Highlights 16 Amicus Curiae Briefs 17 Cases resolved by an Agreement 18 Prohibited Personnel Practice Successes 19 Part 4: Whistleblower Disclosures 26 Overview 26 Disclosure Successes 26 Part 5: Hatch Act 32 Overview 32 Advisory Opinions 32 Hatch Act Unit Successes 32 Part 6: USERRA Enforcement Program 35 Overview 35 USERRA Successes 35 Part 7: Diversity, Outreach & Training 37 Diversity, Outreach and Training Program 37 Annual Survey Program 38 Further Information 39 Prohibited Personnel
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Dod Political Activity Public
    UNCLASSIFIED/FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Subject: 2016 DoD Public Affairs Guidance for Political Campaigns and Elections 1. References. a. DoDI 5405.3, Development of Proposed Public Affairs Guidance (PPAG) b. 2012 DoD Public Affairs Guidance for Political Campaigns and Elections c. DoDD 1344.10, Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces d. 5 U.S.C, Sec. 7321-7326, The Hatch Act of 1939, as amended in 1993 e. 5 C.F.R. Parts 733-734, Political Activities of Federal Employees f. DoDD 5230.09, Clearance of DoD Information for Public Release g. DoDI 5120.4, DoD Newspapers, Magazines and Civilian Enterprise Publications h. DoDI 1100.13, Surveys of DoD Personnel i. DoDI 5120.20, American Forces Radio and Television Service (AFRTS) j. DoDR 5120.20-R, Management and Operation of AFRTS k. DoDI 1334.1, Wearing of the Uniform l. AFI 36-2903, Dress and Personal Appearance of Air Force Personnel m. AR 670-1, Wear And Appearance of Army Uniforms And Insignia n. NAVPERS 15665I, United States Navy Uniform Regulations o. MCO P1020.34G, Marine Corps Uniform Regulations p. DoDD 5410.18, Public Affairs Community Relations Policy q. DoDI 5410.19, Public Affairs Community Relations Policy Implementation r. DoDI 1000.04, Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) s. 2016-2017 Voting Assistance Guide t. U.S Office of Special Counsel, Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Social Media and the Hatch Act, dated April 4, 2012 (supersedes social media advisory, dated August 10, 2010) u. Internal Revenue Code v. 18 U.S.C. 609, Use of military authority to influence vote of member of Armed Forces 2.
    [Show full text]
  • UC Santa Cruz UC Santa Cruz Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    UC Santa Cruz UC Santa Cruz Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Voice v. Vote: The Supreme Court's Paradox of Political Participation in American Liberalism Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0gn799zf Author Snickars, Eric Stephen Publication Date 2015 License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 4.0 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ VOICE V. VOTE: THE SUPREME COURT'S PARADOX OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION IN AMERICAN LIBERALISM A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in POLITICS by Eric Stephen Snickars September 2015 The dissertation of Eric Stephen Snickars is approved: __________________________________ Professor Daniel Wirls, chair __________________________________ Professor Eva C. Bertram __________________________________ Professor Mark Fathi Massoud ____________________________ Tyrus Miller Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies Copyright © by Eric Stephen Snickars 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE – Liberalism, The Supreme Court, And The Paradox Of Political Participation In U.S. Election Law ..............................................................1 CHAPTER TWO – Liberty vs. Equality On The Supreme Court: The Conundrum Of Election Law Jurisprudence ..........................................................30 CHAPTER THREE – From Good Governance To Corporate Expression: The Road To Citizens United v. FEC ................................................................................69
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to Vote Gillette, William
    The Right to Vote Gillette, William Published by Johns Hopkins University Press Gillette, William. The Right to Vote: Politics and the Passage of the Fifteenth Amendment. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1965. Project MUSE. doi:10.1353/book.67838. https://muse.jhu.edu/. For additional information about this book https://muse.jhu.edu/book/67838 [ Access provided at 2 Oct 2021 07:45 GMT with no institutional affiliation ] This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. HOPKINS OPEN PUBLISHING ENCORE EDITIONS William Gillette The Right to Vote Politics and the Passage of the Fifteenth Amendment Open access edition supported by the National Endowment for the Humanities / Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Humanities Open Book Program. © 2019 Johns Hopkins University Press Published 2019 Johns Hopkins University Press 2715 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218-4363 www.press.jhu.edu The text of this book is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. CC BY-NC-ND ISBN-13: 978-1-4214-3235-9 (open access) ISBN-10: 1-4214-3235-8 (open access) ISBN-13: 978-1-4214-3234-2 (pbk. : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 1-4214-3234-X (pbk. : alk. paper) ISBN-13: 978-1-4214-3236-6 (electronic) ISBN-10: 1-4214-3236-6 (electronic) This page supersedes the copyright page included in the original publication of this work. THE RIGHT TO VOTE: POLITICS AND THE PASSAGE OF THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT One of a number of lithographs printed to commemorate the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment and reprinted here by courtesy of the Library of Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • NSA-FOIACASELOG-2016.Pdf
    This document is made available through the declassification efforts and research of John Greenewald, Jr., creator of: The Black Vault The Black Vault is the largest online Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) document clearinghouse in the world. The research efforts here are responsible for the declassification of hundreds of thousands of pages released by the U.S. Government & Military. Discover the Truth at: http://www.theblackvault.com NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICE FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, MARYLAND 20755-6000 FOIA Case: 100503A 4 April 2017 JOHN GREENEWALD Dear Mr. Greenewald: This responds to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request dated 1 January 2017 which was received by this office on 2 January 2017, for "a copy of the FOIA case log for calendar year 2016." For purposes of this request and based on the information you provided in your letter, you are considered an "all other" requester. As such, you are allowed 2 hours of search and the duplication of 100 pages at no cost. Since processing fees were minimal, no fees were assessed. Your request has been processed under the FOIA, and the logs for calendar year 2016 are enclosed, along with a FOIA Case Dispositions reference sheet that explains the final case dispositions. Please be advised that the logs do not contain the number of pages released. They contain a final disposition if the case was closed at the time the logs were created. If there is no final disposition, the case was still pending at the time the logs were created. Certain information has been deleted from the enclosures.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Anti-Communism on the Development of Marxist Historical Analysis Within the Historical Profession of the United States, 1940-1960
    BUILDING THE ABSENT ARGUMENT: THE IMPACT OF ANTI-COMMUNISM ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARXIST HISTORICAL ANALYSIS WITHIN THE HISTORICAL PROFESSION OF THE UNITED STATES, 1940-1960 Gary Cirelli A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS May 2010 Committee: Dr. Douglas J. Forsyth, Advisor Dr. Don K. Rowney Dr. Timothy Messer-Kruse © 2010 Gary Cirelli All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Dr. Douglas Forsyth, Advisor This study poses the question as to why Marxism never developed in the United States as a method of historical analysis until the mid-1960s. In this regard, the only publication attempting to fully address this question was Ian Tyrrell’s book The Absent Marx: Class Analysis and Liberal History in Twentieth-Century America, in which he argued that the lack of Marxist historical analysis is only understood after one examines the internal development of the profession. This internalist argument is incomplete, however, because it downplays the important impact external factors could have had on the development of Marxism within the profession. Keeping this in mind, the purpose of this study is to construct a new argument that takes into account both the internal and external pressures faced by historians practicing Marxism preceding the 1960s. With Tyrrell as a launching pad, it first uses extensive secondary source material in order to construct a framework that takes into account the political and social climate prior to 1960. Highlighting the fact that Marxism was synonymous with Communism in the minds of many, it then examines the ways in which the government tried to suppress Communism and the impact this had on the academy.
    [Show full text]
  • Study Guide with Readings American Government BRIEF VERSION SEVENTH EDITION
    Study Guide with Readings American Government BRIEF VERSION SEVENTH EDITION James Q. Wilson Kyle Smith Western Texas College HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY BOSTON NEW YORK Sponsoring Editor: Katherine Meisenheimer Editorial Assistant: Kristen Craib Manufacturing Coordinator: Marketing Manager: Nicola Poser Editor in Chief: Charles Hartford Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system without the prior written permission of Houghton Mifflin Company unless such copying is expressly permitted by federal copyright law. Address inquiries to College Permissions, Houghton Mifflin Company, 222 Berkeley Street, Boston, MA 02116-3764. Printed in the U.S.A. CONTENTS TO THE STUDENT ................................................................................................................................... V CHAPTER 1 - WHAT SHOULD WE KNOW ABOUT AMERICAN GOVERNMENT?................................... 1 CHAPTER 2 - THE CONSTITUTION..................................................................................................... 11 CHAPTER 3 - CIVIL LIBERTIES AND CIVIL RIGHTS ........................................................................... 31 PART ONE/CLASSIC STATEMENT................................................................................................ 53 CHAPTER 4 - FEDERALISM...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Senator Carl Hatch and the Hatch Act of 1939
    New Mexico Historical Review Volume 48 Number 2 Article 4 4-1-1973 Senator Carl Hatch and the Hatch Act of 1939 David Porter Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmhr Recommended Citation Porter, David. "Senator Carl Hatch and the Hatch Act of 1939." New Mexico Historical Review 48, 2 (2021). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmhr/vol48/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in New Mexico Historical Review by an authorized editor of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. 151 SENATOR CARL HATCH AND THE HATCH ACT OF1939 DAVID PORTER THE HATCH ACT of 1939, which regulated the political ac­ tivities of Federal officials, has evoked considerable comment and controversy. Thirty-three years later, in fact, a Federal Court questioned the constitutionality of the measure. Surprisingly, historians have not devoted entire works Of many chapters to the original Hatch Act/ They have viewed the Act as a political struggle between Conservatives and President Roosevelt, but have devoted relatively little attention· to the sponsor of the proposal. 2 Reform Democratic Senator Carl Hatch of New Mexico played a paramount role in promoting and securing approval of one of the first legislative efforts to control modem government bureaucracy. Hatch carne from a moderate socia-economic background. The son of a country hardware merchant, Hatch was born in Kirwin, Kansas, in November 1889, and attended public schools there and in Eldorado, Oklahoma.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hatch Act Modernization Act: Putting the Government Back in Politics, 42 Fordham Urb
    Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 42 Number 3 Colloquium - Financing and Fairness: Article 6 Implementation and Equity in the Urban Charter School April 2016 The aH tch Act Modernization Act: Putting the Government Back in Politics Shannon D. Azzaro Fordham University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj Part of the Election Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Shannon D. Azzaro, The Hatch Act Modernization Act: Putting the Government Back in Politics, 42 Fordham Urb. L.J. 781 (2015). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol42/iss3/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Urban Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE HATCH ACT MODERNIZATION ACT: PUTTING THE GOVERNMENT BACK IN POLITICS Shannon D. Azzaro* Introduction ............................................................................................. 782 I. Federal Regulation of the Political Activities of Government Employees ......................................................................................... 787 A. The Pendleton Act of 1883 .................................................. 788 B. The Hatch Act’s Prohibitions and Procedures .................. 790 1. Effects on Federal Employees ......................................
    [Show full text]
  • HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES-Monday, April 17, 1989
    6760 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE April 17, 1989 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-Monday, April 17, 1989 The House met at 12 noon and was H.R. 1750. An act to implement the bipar- Mr. Speaker, let us be fair, not parti- called to order by the Speaker pro tisan accord on Central America of March san, mean spirited, or hysterical. tempore [Mr. FOLEY]. 24, 1989. COMMUNICATION FROM THE INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTION DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO CLERK OF THE HOUSE TO ALLOW A NATIONAL PLEBI­ TEMPORE SCITE IN CUBA The SPEAKER pro tempore laid The SPEAKER pro tempore laid <Mr. DOUGLAS asked and was given before the House the following com- before the House the following com­ permission to address the House for 1 munication from the Speaker: munication from the Clerk of the House of Representatives: minute and to revise and extend his WASHINGTON, DC, WASHINGTON, DC, remarks.) April 17, 1989. April 14, 1989. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. Speaker, in Jan­ I hereby designate the Honorable THOMAS Hon. JIM WRIGHT, uary, Cuban dictator Fidel Castro S. FOLEY to act as Speaker pro tempore on marked his 30th year in power. At no today. The Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. time have the Cuban people ever been JIM WRIGHT, DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to the per­ Speaker of the House of Representatives. allowed to express their will through a mission granted in clause 5 of rule III of the free and open vote. With the recent Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, overthrow of General Stroessner of the Clerk received at 9:54 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Speech in the Armed Forces: Shouting Fire in a Crowded Cyberspace Elliott Uh Ghes
    Washington University Jurisprudence Review Volume 11 | Issue 1 2019 Political Speech in the Armed Forces: Shouting Fire in a Crowded Cyberspace Elliott uH ghes Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_jurisprudence Part of the First Amendment Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Law and Society Commons, Legal History Commons, Legal Theory Commons, Military, War, and Peace Commons, and the Rule of Law Commons Recommended Citation Elliott uH ghes, Political Speech in the Armed Forces: Shouting Fire in a Crowded Cyberspace, 11 Wash. U. Jur. Rev. 139 (2019). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_jurisprudence/vol11/iss1/9 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Jurisprudence Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. POLITICAL SPEECH IN THE ARMED FORCES: SHOUTING FIRE IN A CROWDED CYBERSPACE? ELLIOTT HUGHES* “Your voices: for your voices I have fought; Watch’d for your voices; for your voices bear Of wounds two dozen odd; battles thrice six I have seen, and heard of; for your voices have Done many things, some less, some more: your voices: Indeed, I would be consul.”1 Caius Martius Coriolanus ABSTRACT A staple of the American version of democracy is civilian control of the military: we are uncomfortable with politicization of the Armed Forces, and military and other federal laws restrict the political expression of servicemembers (“SMs”) in the Armed Forces, whether they are active- duty members or National Guard or Reserves serving on active duty.2 These restrictions, while well-intentioned to prevent actual or apparent political partisanship or bias within the military, have the undesired effect of deterring SMs from otherwise healthy political expression.
    [Show full text]